The Authority of the Narration of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his Father from his Grandfather

Translator's Introduction

The chain of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather is among the most discussed in the science of ḥadīth. It bears upon the laws of diyāt, zakāt on jewellery, and many other questions, and the scholars' positions on it span the full range from acceptance to rejection. These pages are an English rendering of the most thorough classical treatment of those positions I have come across, Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Ṣabīḥī's monograph al-Iḥtijāj bi Riwāyat ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb ʿan Abīhi ʿan Jaddih, written in Riyāḍ in 6/3/1412 AH.

The work began as classroom notes. I had been teaching a classical ḥadīth text to my students at Dārul Ulūm al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah, London, when I came across the chain. The standard commentaries dealt with the dispute around it briefly, but the underlying scholarly debate, I could see, went much further, and I wanted to look beyond what the commentators had condensed. That search led me to al-Ṣabīḥī's monograph.

I read it and wanted to bring its content into the classroom; but the work needed to be summarised before the students could engage with it directly. I prepared bullet-point notes for that lesson, and what follows grew out of those notes. I had intended at the time to return to it and produce a fuller treatment, but other commitments delayed that for some years. This published English version is the completion of that earlier intention. To my knowledge, al-Ṣabīḥī's patient survey of the imāms' positions has not previously been available in English; I have produced this version so that English-language students of uṣūl al-ḥadīth can engage with the material and weigh the imāms' words for themselves.

My method has been to render the author's narrative analysis in fluent English while preserving the Arabic for what should not be paraphrased: the Qurʾānic verses, the ḥadīth texts, and, above all, the explicit verdicts of the named scholars, which are themselves the objects of al-Ṣabīḥī's study. Each Arabic block is followed by an English translation; the translation is mine and aims at faithful sense rather than a word-for-word equivalent. Footnotes follow the source exactly: the page and line references trace back to the classical works as al-Ṣabīḥī recorded them. Where I have appended notes of my own, to gloss an idiom, to introduce a technical term, or to supply supporting evidence from outside al-Ṣabīḥī's text, these are marked with the prefix tr. so the reader can tell at a glance which footnotes are the author's and which are mine. Names are transliterated with IJMES diacritics throughout this edition; technical terms appear italicised on first use (tadlīs, wijādah, mursal, munqaṭiʿ) and are explained where needed.

I am a student of these sciences, not their master. Where I have understood al-Ṣabīḥī correctly, the merit is the author's and the teachers from whom I learned to read him. Where I have erred, the fault is mine alone, and I ask the reader's correction and duʿāʾ. May Allāh accept this from me, forgive my shortcomings, and grant the reader benefit; and may He bless and grant peace to our Prophet Muḥammad and his family and Companions.

Author's Preface

To proceed: the narration of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather is a chain well known among the scholars; their words about it have circulated widely, both in earlier and later periods. They have studied it carefully, taken pains to clarify what bears upon its connection (ittiṣāl), discontinuity (irsāl), authenticity, and weakness, to the point of composing several monographs on it.

When I prepared the study The Jurisprudence of Zakāt on Jewellery, it became clear to me that there was a renewed need to revisit this chain, to gather the scholars' statements about it, and to expose the misunderstandings that some who consult those statements have fallen into. There is a need for an independent investigation that gives the time and care required to clear up the obscure aspects, the weaker positions, and the attributions that cannot rightly be ascribed to those they are ascribed to, so that the soundest and weightiest opinions emerge. The aim is to safeguard the Prophetic Sunnah preserved through this route, and to set the scholars' words in order, for their views often interweave in ways that make the study of them difficult.

Perhaps the strongest cause of this difficulty is the well-known fact that many critics held more than one position over their lifetime: their views diverge to the point that no one of them is reported as weakening this chain without also being reported as accepting it or relying upon it. This has led many researchers to disagree over what each imām of al-jarḥ wa al-taʿdīl actually held, and that, in turn, prompted me to expand the present study.

The plan of the work is as follows:

I have divided the study into three sections (mabāḥith). In the first, I treat the biographies of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb and his forefathers Shuʿayb and Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhum). For ʿAmr I have confined myself to noting his lineage, listing most of the Tābiʿīn who narrated from him, giving examples of the weaker narrators, and locating the precise point of dispute between the imāms, for there is near-consensus on his personal integrity and truthfulness, and the dispute concerns only the connection of his isnād. Since I have found no critic of his integrity except Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar's observation that he may have been a mudallis, I have included that discussion here as well. I have likewise treated the biographies of Shuʿayb and Muḥammad, citing those who declared them reliable, and following with the scholars' statements about Shuʿayb's audition from his two paternal forefathers (Muḥammad and ʿAbdullāh). I closed this section with the scholars' words about the identity of "the grandfather" in the unspecified attributions.

In the second, I treat the view of each imām independently, under his own heading, gathering everything I have found reported from him; I follow this with what scholars have said about those reports, whether by way of opposing, supporting, clarifying, or interpreting them. I then attempt to draw the scholarly conclusion that resolves what was raised against the imām, that dispels misreadings and false attributions, and that corrects those who quote part of an imām's view while passing over the rest of what is reliably reported from him. Thus, by Allāh's grace, the views of the imāms are clarified and they are defended to the best of my ability.

In the third, I take a single example of what the critics counted among ʿAmr's rejected reports, the ḥadīth on the obligation of zakāt on jewellery. I trace its routes (takhrīj), set out the ways it has been narrated from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, weigh the wordings of the various narrators, identify the points of agreement and divergence, and determine the soundest. I follow with a study of what has been said in support of weakening it, and I draw attention to the misreadings of one contemporary researcher who collected what he thought to be grounds for its weakness.

I close with a conclusion stating the result I have reached. And all praise is to Allāh, by whose blessings righteous deeds are completed; may Allāh bless and grant peace to our Prophet Muḥammad and his family and Companions.

Written by Dr. Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Manṣūr al-Ṣabīḥī, Riyadh, 6/3/1412 AH

The Muḥaddithūn's Attention to this Chain

ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu) is among the foremost of the Companions in the volume of his transmission from the Prophet ﷺ, because he was one of those who wrote down the sunnah during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. Imām al-Dhahabī mentioned that al-Jamāʿah (الجماعة, i.e., the authors of the Six Books) reported approximately seven hundred ḥadīth from him. Of these, Imām al-Bukhārī and Imām Muslim agreed on seven; Imām al-Bukhārī narrated eight individually and Imām Muslim narrated twenty.¹

Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ, in his commentary on Imām al-Dhahabī's remark, observed that Imām Aḥmad reported 626 ḥadīth from him in his Musnad. Reviewing Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir's numbering of the Musnad of ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu) within Imām Aḥmad's Musnad, I found 627, one more than the number Shaykh Shuʿayb gave. The discrepancy is due to the inclusion in ʿAbdullāh's Musnad of one ḥadīth of Jarīr ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Bajalī (no. 6905). ʿAbdullāh's Musnad begins at no. 6477 and ends at no. 7103, confirming Shaykh Shuʿayb's count for the strictly musnad reports from the Prophet ﷺ alone.

To this number must be added sixteen ḥadīth that ʿAbdullāh narrated from seven Companions: Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (raḍ. ʿanhu) (nos. 8 and 28); ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍ. ʿanhu) (no. 118 directly, plus nos. 147, 148, 183, 324, 346 via ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather from ʿUmar); ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Sāʾib (raḍ. ʿanhu) (nos. 15394, 15395, 15397, 15400); Abū Muwayhibah (raḍ. ʿanhu), the freedman of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ (no. 15997); his father ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (raḍ. ʿanhu) (no. 17824); Ubayy ibn Kaʿb (raḍ. ʿanhu) (no. 21108); and Muʿādh (raḍ. ʿanhu) (no. 22093). The Musnad's indexers listed seventeen, but I note that no. 349 is in fact narrated by Mālik ibn Aws ibn al-Ḥadathān from ʿUmar, not by ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu). Their earlier indexing for vol. 1 (pp. 569–570) was correct on this point. The total of what Imām Aḥmad reports from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu) is therefore 716 ḥadīth.

Shuʿayb in turn narrated many of these ḥadīth from ʿAbdullāh, and ʿAmr (Shuʿayb's son) carried most of what his father narrated. From there a great many scholars carried ʿAmr's reports forward. The narrations of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather, in the books of the Six Imāms, reach 168, as Imām al-Mizzī gives in Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf: they begin at no. 8656 and end at no. 8823.² Of these, Imām Aḥmad records 143 in the Musnad; Shuʿayb's narrations from his grandfather ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu) in the Musnad outside the route of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb come to four, bringing Shuʿayb's total from his grandfather in the Musnad to 147. In Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar's Itḥāf al-Maharah the ḥadīth number 177 (nos. 11697 to 11873).

Works composed on this chain

So intense was the scholars' concern with this chain that they composed several monographs on it:

1. Imām Muslim (d. 261 AH) compiled a juzʾ of what the scholars regarded as rejected (mustankar) from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb's ḥadīth.

2. Al-Ḥāfiẓ ʿAbd al-Ghanī ibn Saʿīd (d. 409 AH) wrote on the tābiʿīn who narrated from him.³

3. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū Saʿīd Imām al-ʿAlāʾī (d. 761 AH) authored al-Washī al-Muʿallam. Imām al-Suyūṭī described it as "a separate juzʾ devoted to the soundness of relying on this collection (nuskhah) and a reply to what has been raised against it."⁴ Imām al-ʿIrāqī (d. 806 AH) read the work with its author in Bayt al-Maqdis, as he himself reports.⁵

4. Imām al-Bulqīnī (d. 805 AH) wrote Badhl al-Nāqid Baʿḍ Juhdihi fī al-Iḥtijāj bi ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb ʿan Abīhi ʿan Jaddihi.⁶

5. Furayḥ al-Bahlāl (contemporary) treated the narration in a separate study, summarising his findings in his Imtinān al-ʿAlī bi ʿAdam Zakāt al-Ḥilyy. He concludes, after listing nine grounds, that ʿAmr's narration from his father from his grandfather is weak. I have three methodological concerns with al-Bahlāl's presentation: (a) he quotes only those who weakened the chain, omitting opposing voices; (b) he reports each imām's grounds for rejection without noting the same imām's grounds for acceptance, yet most of the imāms who criticise the chain are also reported as accepting it; (c) he does not address the responses other imāms gave to those grounds. Because al-Bahlāl's book is in print and circulating, I address each of his nine grounds in the appropriate place in this study.

Of the first four works listed, I was unable to obtain copies, and so they have not been studied nor drawn upon here; what I take up in this volume is a response to al-Bahlāl's nine arguments.

---

Chapter One: Biographies of ʿAmr and his Forefathers

This chapter sets out the biographies of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, his father Shuʿayb, and his grandfather Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh, with a focus on the precise points where the imāms differ. It then turns to the questions of audition through the chain, Shuʿayb's hearing from his father Muḥammad and from his grandfather ʿAbdullāh, and concludes with the dispute over the identity of "the grandfather" in unspecified attributions, and over whether the chain rests on audition (samāʿ) or on the finding of a written manuscript (wijādah).

Biography of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb (d. 118 AH)

Name and lineage

He is ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb ibn Muḥammad, son of the Companion of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu) ibn al-ʿĀṣ (raḍ. ʿanhu). He is the imām, the muḥaddith, Abū Ibrāhīm, according to the more correct view, and is also said to have been Abū ʿAbdullāh; al-Qurashī al-Sahmī al-Ḥijāzī, the jurist of the people of Ṭāʾif and their muḥaddith. He used to travel often to Mecca to spread knowledge. He narrated from his father at length, and also from al-Rubayyiʿ bint Muʿawwidh (raḍ. ʿanhā) and Zaynab bint Abī Salamah (raḍ. ʿanhā), both of whom were Companions of the Prophet ﷺ.⁷

Was he a Tābiʿī?

Imām al-Dāraquṭnī reports that al-Nuqāsh held ʿAmr was not among the Tābiʿīn:

Imām al-Dāraquṭnī added:

Imām al-Mizzī disagreed:

Imām al-Nawawī likewise sided with al-Nuqāsh. Imām al-Mizzī's rebuttal applies to Imām al-Nawawī's position equally.

His students

His students were many, especially among the Tābiʿīn. Imām al-Nawawī listed twenty-two of them, including: ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, Imām al-Zuhrī, Yaḥyā al-Anṣārī, Thābit al-Bunānī, Abū Isḥāq al-Shaybānī, Imām Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī, Abū Ḥāzim, Dāwud ibn Abī Hind, Qatādah, al-Ḥakam, Wahb ibn Munabbih, al-Zubayr ibn ʿAdī, Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Bashīr, Makḥūl, Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl, Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb, Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr, Ḥarīz ibn ʿUthmān, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Rāfiʿ, and Dāwud ibn Qays. All of them are tābiʿīn, a fact that the scholars cite as evidence of ʿAmr's standing: a man from whom such Tābiʿīn narrated, and who is for that reason placed by some among the Atbāʿ al-Tābiʿīn, must be of considerable rank.

Status of his narrations

The scholars praised him highly, and there is near-consensus on his personal integrity. They differed only on the connection of his narrations from his father from his grandfather: those who did not consider this chain connected criticised it; those who held it to be connected accepted it, provided the report was neither anomalous (shādhdh) nor rejected (munkar).

Imām Ibn ʿAdī observed:

Imām al-Dhahabī divided ʿAmr's narrators into three classes, assigning to each a verdict on the resulting reports:

• Weak narrators such as al-Muthanná ibn al-Ṣabbāḥ, Muḥammad ibn ʿUbaydullāh al-ʿArzamī, Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭāt, Ibn Lahīʿah, Isḥāq ibn Abī Farwah, and al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn Ḥamzah, when one of these is alone in narrating from him, his report is weak and not a basis for argument.
• Disputed narrators such as Usāmah ibn Zayd, Hishām ibn Saʿd, and Ibn Isḥāq, there is some hesitation about their reports; the better course is not to argue from them.
• Reliable narrators such as Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim, Sulaymān ibn Mūsā al-Faqīh, and Imām Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī, argument from these is preferable, provided the wording is neither shādhdh nor munkar. For Imām Aḥmad himself said: "له أشياء مناكير" ("He has rejected reports.").¹¹

Despite the dispute, the Ummah depends on his narrations, especially those concerning the laws of diyāt (blood-money). The imāms are unanimous in relying on what comes through him in this domain, as Ibn al-Qayyim reported in Tahdhīb al-Sunan.¹² He lived to the year 118 AH, may Allāh cover him with His vast mercy.

ʿAmr's hearing from his father

ʿAmr had three forefathers in the chain, Shuʿayb, Muḥammad, and ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu), and the scholars differed on his audition from his father along two lines.

Those who affirmed the audition

Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Jawzjānī al-Warrāq:

Imām ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī:

Abū Bakr ibn Ziyād Imām al-Naysābūrī:

Imām Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī:

Ibn Abī Khaythamah, in dialogue with Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn:

Imām Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ:

Those who denied the audition

Ibn Abī Khaythamah:

I have not seen anyone explicitly deny that ʿAmr heard from his father except Hārūn, and his statement is weak because it contradicts the position of the majority who affirm the audition. Affirmation, as is well known, takes precedence over negation. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar invoked Hārūn's statement in his attempt to argue that ʿAmr practised tadlīs; that argument is itself weak, given the prevailing consensus, and especially the explicit affirmation by Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn.

The attribution of tadlīs

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said:

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar placed ʿAmr in the second tier of the mudallisīn, those whose tadlīs the imāms tolerated. After citing the statements of those who held that ʿAmr's narrations stemmed from a manuscript, he wrote:

I push back here. No scholar before Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar appears to have classified ʿAmr as a mudallis. None of the imāms who declared him reliable or weakened him hint at tadlīs. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar himself in Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb describes him only as ṣadūq, without mentioning tadlīs. Imām al-Sakhāwī, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar's student, omits any reference to tadlīs when describing him in connection with riwāyat al-abnāʾ ʿan al-ābāʾ (the narrations of sons from fathers).¹³ When Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn addressed the discontinuity in the chain, he used the term irsāl rather than tadlīs, a clear distinction.

Ibn Maʿīn said:

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar then commented:

My synthesis is this. It is widely accepted that ʿAmr was not initially accused of tadlīs; the charge arose from Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar's assumption that ʿAmr relied on written documents from his father, a debatable premise. ʿAmr's integrity is unquestioned. To insist on direct hearing in every case, and on that basis to label him a mudallis, risks weakening his reliability, even though he was never formally accused of tadlīs. Tadlīs al-qabīḥ ("egregious tadlīs"), which involves omitting weak narrators to make a chain appear stronger, is not at issue here. If we suppose ʿAmr found his grandfather's documents in his father's possession, this would render the mention of Shuʿayb in the chain redundant. And if tadlīs is conceded with respect to ʿAmr's narrations from his father, it would be a matter of mode of transmission rather than anything egregious. The use of al-ʿanʿanah indicates a form of transmission that does not significantly undermine credibility, and is accepted by many ḥadīth scholars. This is why the early ḥadīth critics did not label ʿAmr a mudallis; Imām al-ʿIrāqī and Imām al-Sakhāwī treated it merely as leniency on his part.

Biography of Shuʿayb ibn Muḥammad

He is Shuʿayb ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu) ibn al-ʿĀṣ (raḍ. ʿanhu) al-Sahmī, attributed to his great-grandfather ʿAbdullāh. He narrated from his grandfather, Ibn ʿAbbās (raḍ. ʿanhumā), Ibn ʿUmar (raḍ. ʿanhumā), Muʿāwiyah (raḍ. ʿanhu), and ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit (raḍ. ʿanhu).

Khalīfah listed him in the first generation of the people of Ṭāʾif.¹⁴ Imām Ibn Ḥibbān included him in Kitāb al-Thiqāt among the Tābiʿīn,¹⁵ and again among the Tābiʿ al-Tābiʿīn, where he wrote:

Imām al-Dhahabī said:

Imām al-Dhahabī also said:

Imām al-Dhahabī in al-Kāshif:

Imām Ibn Ḥibbān himself implicitly declared Shuʿayb reliable. In al-Majrūḥīn he laid out an exception when treating ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb:

Imām Ibn Ḥibbān's singling out of ʿAmr's narrations from his father, and his inclusion of ʿAmr otherwise among the trustworthy, is a tacit endorsement of Shuʿayb. The ground for the exception is not Shuʿayb's lack of reliability, but rather the claim that Shuʿayb did not hear from his grandfather ʿAbdullāh.

Imām al-Ḥākim authenticated him as well, saying after one of his chains:

Imām al-Nawawī said:

Imām Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd said, after one of his chains:

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar wrote:

Yet Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar also placed him in the second tier of the mudallisīn. Of Shuʿayb specifically he wrote:

My assessment: Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar did not categorically affirm that Shuʿayb was a mudallis; he wrote only that "the form of tadlīs is found", a probabilistic observation, not a verdict. No earlier critic appears to have advanced even this. Imām al-Dhahabī declared Shuʿayb free of fault and described him as ṣadūq, and four imāms declared him reliable. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar's probabilistic remark cannot outweigh those explicit endorsements.

Shuʿayb's hearing from his father Muḥammad

Several reports appear on their face to indicate that Shuʿayb heard from his father Muḥammad, and on this basis the scholars differed. My own exhaustive analysis of three ḥadīth in which Muḥammad's name appears explicitly in the chain, recorded in Imām Ibn Ḥibbān, Imām Abū Dāwūd, and Imām al-Ḥākim, leads me to conclude that all three are weak, contradicted, or contain confusion in the manuscripts:

• In Imām Ibn Ḥibbān's chain, "al-Qāsim ibn Abī Shaybah" is ambiguous between two contemporaries, al-Qāsim ibn Abī Shaybah, brother of Abū Bakr and ʿUthmān (a known weak transmitter); and al-Qāsim ibn Abī Shaybah Yaḥyā al-Hilālī (a Baghdādī obscure narrator). Both are recipients of Abū Yaʿlā, and neither is listed among the students of Yaʿqūb ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Saʿd, who appears in this chain.
• In Imām Abū Dāwūd's chain, al-Muthanná ibn al-Ṣabbāḥ is weak and confused at the end of his life; and Ibn Jurayj, who is reliable, drops Shuʿayb altogether in the parallel route in al-Muṣannaf, rendering the chain disconnected.
• In Imām al-Ḥākim's chain, Jarīr ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd (reliable but described in his later years as occasionally erring from memory) is contradicted by Yazīd ibn Hārūn (described as "thiqah, mutqin, ʿābid"), who omits the addition. The reliable mutqin transmitter takes precedence.

My conclusion is that the audition of Shuʿayb from his father Muḥammad is not in fact established. The only scholars who explicitly affirmed it are Imām al-Dāraquṭnī, Imām al-Nawawī, and (implicitly) Imām Ibn Ḥibbān; against this stand the explicit denials of Imām al-Dhahabī¹⁸ and Imām al-ʿIrāqī¹⁹, the latter quoting Imām al-ʿAlāʾī's observation that "what is reported of explicit narration of Muḥammad from his father in the chain is shādhdh and rare," and that some have noted that Muḥammad died during his father's lifetime, with ʿAbdullāh taking charge of raising Shuʿayb.

Shuʿayb's hearing from his grandfather ʿAbdullāh

On Shuʿayb's audition from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu) the scholars likewise differed. The first view affirms the audition, and is held by the following imāms:

Imām al-Bukhārī:

Imām Aḥmad, asked by al-Jawzjānī, "And his father heard from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu)?", replied:

Abū Bakr ibn Ziyād Imām al-Naysābūrī:

The audition is likewise affirmed by Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī and Imām al-Dāraquṭnī.²¹

Imām al-Ḥākim wrote a long defence in al-Mustadrak:

He then narrated the well-known story of the man who came to ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu) asking about a pilgrim who had relations with his wife: ʿAbdullāh pointed to ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar; and Shuʿayb (in the first person) reports having gone with the questioner first to Ibn ʿUmar (raḍ. ʿanhumā), then to Ibn ʿAbbās (raḍ. ʿanhumā), and back to his grandfather. Imām al-Ḥākim concluded:

This authoritative report, recounted in the first person by Shuʿayb himself, is decisive. Imām ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī, Imām al-Dhahabī, and Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar all affirm Shuʿayb's audition from ʿAbdullāh on this and similar grounds. The opposing position is held by Imām Ibn Ḥibbān (in al-Thiqāt he wrote that "the audition of Shuʿayb from ʿAbdullāh is not authentic"), with Imām ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī and Imām Ibn ʿAdī sometimes cited in support, but I argue that they were addressing ʿAmr's reception of the manuscript, not Shuʿayb's audition from ʿAbdullāh. Imām al-Dāraquṭnī replied to Imām Ibn Ḥibbān:

The very same first-person report.

Shuʿayb's hearing from ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (raḍ. ʿanhu)

As for Shuʿayb's audition from his great-great-grandfather ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (raḍ. ʿanhu), this is not established. Imām al-Dāraquṭnī stated explicitly:

Biography of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh

He is Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu) ibn al-ʿĀṣ (raḍ. ʿanhu) al-Sahmī, the father of Shuʿayb. Ibn Yūnus mentioned him in Tārīkh Miṣr:

Imām Ibn Ḥibbān listed him among the trustworthy and added:

Imām al-Nawawī said:

Imām al-Dhahabī said:

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar described him as "مقبول، من الثالثة" ("maqbūl, that is acceptable, from the third generation.").²⁵

Two observations follow. First, Imām al-Nawawī's tawthīq supplements Imām al-Dhahabī's remark that "ولا ذُكِر بتوثيق ولا لِين" ("he is not mentioned with either a tawthīq or a taliyīn"): Imām al-Nawawī did declare him reliable. Second, regarding the audition of Shuʿayb from him, the discussion above indicates that the stronger view is that this audition is not established. Imām al-ʿIrāqī reported from Imām al-ʿAlāʾī that Muḥammad died during the lifetime of his father ʿAbdullāh, who then took charge of raising the orphaned Shuʿayb.²⁶

Who is "the grandfather"?

When the chain reads "ʿAmr from his father from his grandfather" without specifying who "the grandfather" is, two views are reported:

View 1: It may refer to either Muḥammad or ʿAbdullāh.

Imām Ibn ʿAdī's view tracks Imām Ibn Ḥibbān's. Imām al-Dāraquṭnī also distinguishes the three grandfathers (Muḥammad, ʿAbdullāh, ʿAmr) and rules that when ʿAbdullāh is named the report is sound.

View 2: "The grandfather" refers, by default, to ʿAbdullāh.

My synthesis: by the rule that a pronoun refers to the nearest antecedent unless context dictates otherwise, when ʿAmr's students say "from his father from his grandfather", the "his" in "his grandfather" refers back to Shuʿayb. Shuʿayb's grandfather is ʿAbdullāh. Had they meant ʿAmr's grandfather, they would have said so directly. Moreover, Shuʿayb's narration from his father Muḥammad is shādhdh and rare, and not in fact established by a sound chain, whereas his audition from his grandfather ʿAbdullāh is established.

Is the chain wijādah or samāʿ?

Four positions emerge, and those who hold for wijādah (transmission by finding a written text) further disagree on whether the finder was ʿAmr or his father Shuʿayb.

Position 1: The finder is ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb

Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn:

Imām Abū Zurʿah is reported to the same effect.

Imām ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī:

Imām Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī, warning al-Layth ibn Abī Sulaym:

Imām al-Dhahabī noted:

Hārūn ibn Maʿrūf:

Imām al-Dhahabī responded:

Imām al-Tirmidhī:

Position 2: The finder is Shuʿayb

Imām al-Sājī recorded Imām Ibn Maʿīn (in another report):

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar added:

Imām Aḥmad:

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar elsewhere:

Position 3: The chain is connected by audition

Imām Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ:

Imām Isḥāq ibn Rāhūyah:

The comparison shows that he treated the chain as audition, not wijādah.

Imām al-Ḥāzimī:

Position 4: The chain is mursal or munqaṭiʿ

Imām Ibn Ḥibbān:

Imām al-Dāraquṭnī's position above implies that when the grandfather is unspecified the report could be either mursal (if Muḥammad is intended) or connected (if ʿAbdullāh is). Imām Ibn ʿAdī did not commit himself unequivocally:

My preferred view

The fourth position is weak: Shuʿayb's meeting with his grandfather ʿAbdullāh is established, and the unspecified grandfather is ʿAbdullāh, not Muḥammad. That leaves either pure audition, or part audition and part wijādah. The finder, if any, is ʿAmr, not Shuʿayb. Ayyūb, ʿAmr's student and one of the earliest to comment on this, attributed the wijādah to ʿAmr; and a student is more knowledgeable about his teacher's state. Imām Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ's "the whole of it is by audition" is best read as referring to Shuʿayb's narration from ʿAbdullāh, even while affirming ʿAmr's audition from Shuʿayb.

Those who count Shuʿayb as the finder rest on Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn's shifting reports, sometimes naming ʿAmr, sometimes Shuʿayb. Imām Aḥmad's remark on the matter is by way of report, not assertion.

This wijādah, however, is not like ordinary wijādah. ʿAmr did hear part of the manuscript from his father, and so must have known of the existence of the rest from him; the report of its existence is therefore connected. ʿAmr's narrations of the rest are not based on mere finding of his father's or grandfather's handwriting; the chain "from his father from his grandfather" retains its meaning. To suppose otherwise, that ʿAmr found his grandfather's manuscript directly, would render the mention of Shuʿayb in the chain pointless.

The conclusion: ʿAmr heard part directly, and took the rest from the manuscript whose existence he had heard about in general. This best fits the muʿanʿanah wording of his isnāds, harmonises the imāms' statements, and clears ʿAmr of any imputation of tadlīs.

---

Chapter Two: The Views of the Scholars

At the outset of this chapter I note that scholars' statements on ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb's chain fall into three categories: those whose reports uniformly affirm reliability; those whose reports uniformly weaken; and those whose reports are mixed. Where the reports are mixed, I make an effort to reconcile them, gathering everything reported from each imām, identifying apparent contradictions, and proposing a synthesis that does justice to the corpus. Reports are arranged by the year of death of the imām in question.

Those uniformly reported as authenticators

Reports are recorded from a group of imāms who consistently authenticated ʿAmr; no contrary report is found from them:

Aḥmad ibn ʿAbdullāh al-ʿIjlī and Imām al-Nasāʾī: both said "thiqah." Imām al-Nasāʾī once said "laysa bihi baʾs."

Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī:

Imām Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ:

Ibn Shāhīn included him in al-Thiqāt with no language other than tawthīq.³⁷

Imām al-Ḥāzimī:

Imām Yaʿqūb ibn Shaybah:

Imām al-Awzāʿī:

Ibn Rāhūyah and Ṣāliḥ Jazarah both declared him reliable.⁴⁰

These reports divide into two: tawthīq of the man alone (without ruling on his isnād from his father from his grandfather), as in al-ʿIjlī and Imām al-Nasāʾī (and apparently al-Dārimī); and tawthīq of the man plus acceptance of the chain, as Imām Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ makes explicit and as Ibn Shāhīn's practice implies.

Those uniformly reported as critics

Imām Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah:

Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ, as transmitted by Muʿtamir ibn Sulaymān:

Mughīrah, as ʿUthmān ibn Abī Shaybah reports:

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar clarifies these:

My comment: Sufyān's remark is itself ambiguous and is reported as repeating something the people said. Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ's words point to ʿAmr's lack of selectivity in transmission, not a ground for rejecting his sound ḥadīth. Imām al-Bukhārī authenticated ʿAmr's ḥadīth and, in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ, repeated only this report (not any further criticism), indicating that he did not regard Abū ʿAmr's words as a binding jarḥ. Mughīrah's statement gives no reason for setting aside the manuscript, and the scholars who argued from it generally are to be preferred.

Imām al-Zuhrī (d. 125 AH)

No explicit verdict from Imām al-Zuhrī on ʿAmr's isnād is established; but the senior muḥaddithūn cited Imām al-Zuhrī's narration from ʿAmr as an argument for accepting his ḥadīth. Aḥmad ibn ʿAbdullāh said:

Ibn Abī Ḥātim records that he asked Imām Abū Zurʿah, who answered:

Imām Ibn ʿAdī reports an isolated chain from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz suggesting Imām al-Zuhrī cursed those who narrated a ḥadīth from ʿAmr, but on examining the chain I find it suspect: Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥamdān, Imām Ibn ʿAdī's shaykh, was not authenticated by anyone, and the report is best treated as fabricated. The reliable verdict is that Imām al-Zuhrī considered ʿAmr's ḥadīth good enough to narrate from him.

Imām Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī (d. 131 AH)

Imām Ayyūb's position is delicate. On one hand he himself narrated from ʿAmr explicit chains of audition:

On the other hand, Imām Ayyūb said to al-Layth:

Imām al-Dhahabī explained:

Reconciliation: Imām Ayyūb considered ʿAmr reliable when explicit audition was specified, but warned against the bulk of his muʿanʿanah reports because they came through a manuscript. The two positions are compatible, and accord with the conclusion above (part audition, part wijādah).

Imām Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198 AH)

Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd is reported to have employed a careful conditional:

His position resembles Imām Ibn Ḥibbān's exception (acceptance via reliable students).

Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn (d. 233 AH)

From Ibn Maʿīn are recorded reports of more than one orientation. He is the locus of much of the apparent inconsistency in this dossier.

• Affirmative: "ثقة" ("He is reliable"); "ثقة، بُلِيَ بكتاب أبيه عن جده" ("He is reliable, but burdened with his father's book from his grandfather").⁴⁴
• Doubtful: "ليس بذاك" ("Laysa bi-dhāk", that is, "He is not that strong").⁴⁵
• Mixed (Imām al-Sājī): "هو ثقة في نفسه، وما روى عن أبيه عن جده لا حُجَّة فيه..." ("He is reliable in himself; what he narrates from his father from his grandfather has no probative force...").⁴⁶
• Affirmative through Ibn Abī Khaythamah: Ibn Maʿīn conceded the audition of ʿAmr from his father.
• From Imām al-Bukhārī: "اجتمع عليّ ويحيى بن معين وأحمد وأبو خيثمة وشيوخ من أهل العلم، فتذاكروا حديث عمرو بن شعيب، فثبَّتوه وذكروا أنه حُجَّة" ("Imām ʿAlī, Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn, Aḥmad, Abū Khaythamah, and shaykhs of the people of knowledge gathered and discussed ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb's ḥadīth; they affirmed it and said it was a ḥujjah").⁴⁷

Reconciliation: Imām Ibn Maʿīn regarded ʿAmr personally as reliable, accepted his audition from his father, but considered the bulk of ʿAmr's narrations from his father from his grandfather to be from a manuscript, sound in attribution to ʿAbdullāh, but mursal in mode of transmission. "Laysa bi-dhāk" applies to the muʿanʿanah, not to the man. The Imām al-Mizzī report attributing to Imām Ibn Maʿīn absolute weakening is unsustainable in light of the multiple counter-reports.

Imām ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī (d. 234 AH)

Imām ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī's twin reports likewise reflect this dichotomy:

Imām al-Bukhārī then includes him among those who used ʿAmr's ḥadīth as evidence:

Reconciliation: Imām Ibn al-Madīnī accepted audition through reliable students (Imām Ayyūb, Ibn Jurayj) and considered the rest a wijādah, but practically he argued from ʿAmr's ḥadīth, exactly because some of it stood on audition. The reports are not contradictory.

Imām Isḥāq ibn Rāhūyah (d. 238 AH)

Imām Isḥāq's most quoted statement is the comparison:

The implication, on Imām Isḥāq's usage, is that the chain is by audition.

Imām Aḥmad (d. 241 AH)

Reports from Imām Aḥmad fall into three groups: (a) acceptance via the question "Did ʿAmr hear from his father?", "He used to say: My father narrated to me"; (b) practice, Imām Aḥmad himself argued from ʿAmr's ḥadīth, as Imām al-Bukhārī, al-Athram, and Imām Abū Dāwūd all report; (c) the report of al-Maymūnī in which Imām Aḥmad seems to demur. Furayḥ al-Bahlāl cites only al-Maymūnī's report and concludes that Imām Aḥmad was not in fact among those who took ʿAmr as ḥujjah.

My reply: "Ḥujjah" admits of degrees. Al-Maymūnī's report, even if accepted as is, is at most a fatwā qawliyyah (a verbal opinion) opposed by other fatwā qawliyyah of the same Imām (al-Athram, Imām Abū Dāwūd), as well as by Imām Aḥmad's practice of arguing from ʿAmr's ḥadīth, as recorded by Imām al-Bukhārī, who is Amīr al-muʾminīn fī al-ḥadīth. Imām Aḥmad's practice was the same as that of Imām ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī and the others Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar mentions: argue from the chain when it is sound, decline when it is not. To deny that Imām Aḥmad ever argued from this chain on the strength of one verbal report, and to do so against Imām al-Bukhārī's observation of his actual practice, does not respect the hierarchy of evidence.

Imām al-Bukhārī (d. 256 AH)

Imām al-Bukhārī's position is among the most discussed. In al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, and as Imām al-Tirmidhī reports from him, Imām al-Bukhārī names the imāms who argued from ʿAmr's ḥadīth, Imām Aḥmad, Imām ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī, al-Ḥumaydī, Imām Isḥāq, and adds: "Whom of the people are after them?" (i.e., who could oppose them?). And in another report:

Discrepancies in Imām al-Mizzī's and Imām al-Dhahabī's renderings

Imām al-Mizzī's Tahdhīb al-Kamāl gives the report with the addition "and the bulk of our companions" and "none of the Muslims abandoned it." Imām al-Dhahabī's Siyar follows Imām al-Mizzī's wording; his Mīzān follows Imām al-Bukhārī's Tārīkh original. I have compared the four primary sources (Imām al-Tirmidhī's Sunan in three places, and Imām al-Dāraquṭnī's isnād-attested transmission) and found that the additions appear in Imām al-Mizzī alone, and only in later sources that depended on Imām al-Mizzī. The conclusion: the additions are Imām al-Mizzī's, likely added to strengthen the position Imām al-Mizzī favoured, not strict reportage from Imām al-Bukhārī. Imām al-Mizzī himself signalled this by separating "Imām al-Bukhārī said" a second time, as if pointing to a second occasion. The substantive position remains: Imām al-Bukhārī's judgment was that ʿAmr's ḥadīth stood as ḥujjah.

Furayḥ al-Bahlāl challenged the authenticity of Imām al-Bukhārī's very first report, arguing that it could not be reconciled with Imām al-Bukhārī's practice elsewhere of (allegedly) declining ʿAmr's ḥadīth. My response in detail:

• Al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr is unanimously authentic; nothing in it has been disputed for centuries.
• Imām al-Tirmidhī is the report's narrator and one of Imām al-Bukhārī's closest students; calling him into question on this without cause is unwarranted. Imām al-Bukhārī himself wrote it in his Tārīkh, which Imām al-Tirmidhī merely transmits.
• All four primary sources record the substance.
• The supposed inconsistency with Imām al-Bukhārī's practice is itself based on a contested premise about that practice; Imām al-Bukhārī's Ṣaḥīḥ includes citations of ʿAmr by way of iḥtijāj in places (e.g., Juzʾ al-Qirāʾah Khalfa al-Imām) and Imām al-Bukhārī's general method of inclusion in the Tārīkh without jarḥ itself indicates non-rejection.

Imām Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī (d. 264 AH)

Imām Abū Zurʿah said:

His position is the same as those who hold for partial audition with the rest by wijādah.

Imām Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī (d. 275 AH)

Imām Abū Dāwūd is among those Imām al-Bukhārī names, implicitly, through his teacher Imām Aḥmad. He himself records a number of ʿAmr's ḥadīth and asks Imām Aḥmad about ʿAmr; Imām Aḥmad's answer is the substance of Imām Abū Dāwūd's reception. His practice tracks Imām Aḥmad's.

Imām Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 277 AH)

Imām Abū Ḥātim is reported to have weakened the chain in some reports; in others he affirms the audition, paralleling Imām Abū Zurʿah and the others who held the partial-audition view.

Imām Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH)

Imām Ibn Ḥibbān's long verdict in al-Majrūḥīn (already given in Chapter 1, position 4): rejection rested on the dilemma "either ʿAbdullāh (so Shuʿayb did not meet him: disconnected) or Muḥammad (so no Companionship: mursal)." Both prongs of his dilemma fail when one establishes that Shuʿayb did meet his grandfather ʿAbdullāh, and that the unspecified grandfather is ʿAbdullāh.

In al-Thiqāt Imām Ibn Ḥibbān listed ʿAmr, Shuʿayb, and Muḥammad among the reliable. The reconciliation he proposed himself is the well-known exception:

Imām al-Dhahabī's rejoinder, recorded as "this is nothing":

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar adds:

Imām Ibn ʿAdī (d. 365 AH)

Imām Ibn ʿAdī did not commit himself unequivocally on the identity of the grandfather:

The verdict accordingly turns on the identification of the grandfather, which I have shown is ʿAbdullāh.

Imām al-Shīrāzī (d. 476 AH)

Imām al-Shīrāzī treated ʿAmr's ikhbār of his father from his grandfather as authoritative, in line with the position of acceptance through reliable students.

Imām al-Bayhaqī (d. 458 AH)

Imām al-Bayhaqī's practice was to argue from ʿAmr's ḥadīth in the rulings he supported, treating the chain as good evidence, particularly in the diyāt. He follows in the line of those who hold the chain established by audition in part.

Imām al-Dhahabī (d. 748 AH)

Imām al-Dhahabī's reports across Siyar, Mīzān, al-Mughnī, and Maʿrifat al-Ruwāh al-Mutakallam Fīhim bimā lā Yawjib al-Radd present a coherent view: ʿAmr is reliable in himself; his ḥadīth from his father from his grandfather are sound but not all by audition; the chain may be partly audition, partly wijādah; the ḥadīth are accepted unless shādhdh or munkar; the imāms who criticised him are answering only the wijādah element.

Apparent variation across his books

In Siyar Imām al-Dhahabī reports Imām al-Bukhārī's strong endorsement; his Mīzān reports the more cautious classification of narrators; al-Mughnī gives the brief verdict; and Maʿrifat al-Ruwāh al-Mutakallam Fīhim bimā lā Yawjib al-Radd lists him precisely among those whose criticisms do not warrant rejection. These books are mutually consistent when one attends to the question being addressed in each: tawthīq, classification of students, brief assessment, or location among the criticised.

Imām al-Zaylaʿī (d. 762 AH)

Imām al-Zaylaʿī in Naṣb al-Rāyah likewise relies on ʿAmr's ḥadīth and discusses Imām Ibn Ḥibbān's objection: "Whoever says he heard from his grandfather is wrong." Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar replied: "Audition in a few ḥadīth is established; if all the rest is a manuscript, the form of tadlīs is found."⁵¹

---

Chapter Three: The Ḥadīth of Zakāt on Jewellery

Imām Ibn Ḥibbān listed seven ḥadīth from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb in his biography in al-Majrūḥīn as examples of what he considered rejected reports. I select from these the well-known ḥadīth on the obligation of zakāt on women's jewellery, both because of the volume of debate around its chain, and because my earlier study, The Jurisprudence of Zakāt on Jewellery, treats its fiqh.

The text of the ḥadīth in Imām Ibn Ḥibbān

Imām Ibn Ḥibbān narrated, by his chain from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu):

Imām Ibn Ḥibbān added after listing his seven examples: "We were informed of all these ḥadīth by Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī ibn al-Muthannā; he said: Kāmil ibn Ṭalḥah al-Jaḥdarī narrated to us; Ibn Lahīʿah said: ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb narrated to us from his father from his grandfather, in a long manuscript we wrote down from him. None of those skilled in this craft can fail to recognise these as fabricated or inverted. We have already disclaimed Ibn Lahīʿah's reliability in his proper place…"

Routes of transmission

I trace the ḥadīth through nine compilations:

1. Imām Aḥmad records it via Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather. Ḥusayn is reliable, in Imām al-Dhahabī's third tier, argument from these is preferable. Imām Aḥmad's chain is the strongest of those collected.

2. Imām Abū Dāwūd's ḥadīth on this matter takes Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim's route, paralleling Imām Aḥmad. Other transmitters in the chain (Maḥmūd ibn Khālid, Abū ʿĀṣim, Ibn Jurayj) are reliable.

3. Imām al-Tirmidhī's recension goes through Ibn Lahīʿah and al-Muthanná ibn al-Ṣabbāḥ, both weak. Imām al-Tirmidhī himself wrote:

   Some commentators read Imām al-Tirmidhī as deeming the report itself weak. I argue this is an over-reading: Imām al-Tirmidhī expressed weakness in the two transmitters, not in the report; weakness in transmitters does not entail weakness in the matn, since ḥasan li-ghayrihī can arise from corroborating chains. Imām al-Tirmidhī expressly mentioned al-Muthanná's mutābaʿah of Ibn Lahīʿah, which he could not have done if he meant to declare the matn weak. The fairer reading is that for him the ḥadīth is ḥasan li-ghayrihī, sound enough for aḥkām, just below ṣaḥīḥ.⁵²

4. Imām al-Nasāʾī records the report via Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim's line; sound on the same grounds as Imām Aḥmad.

5. ʿAbd al-Razzāq's Muṣannaf gives the report through Ibn Jurayj from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb. Ibn Jurayj's reception from ʿAmr is sound (see Imām Ibn al-Madīnī's verdict above).

6. Ibn Abī Shaybah cites the ḥadīth in his Muṣannaf through several routes; the strongest is again through Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim or Ibn Jurayj.

7. Imām al-Dāraquṭnī's Sunan gathers multiple chains; he authenticates those that go through reliable students from ʿAmr.

8. Abū ʿUbayd's Kitāb al-Amwāl cites the ḥadīth with comment.

9. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī's recension likewise records the ḥadīth.

Authentication arguments

Those who authenticate the ḥadīth confine themselves to Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim's line, on the strength of:

• Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim's tier-three reliability in Imām al-Dhahabī's classification.
• ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb's established audition from his father in part of the chain, and the partial wijādah's acceptance as one of the recognised modes of transmission.
• The agreed practice of the imāms of arguing from ʿAmr's ḥadīth in the diyāt domain, of which zakāt-on-jewellery is a related juristic matter.
• The mutābaʿah of Ibn Jurayj from ʿAmr (Imām Ibn al-Madīnī's verdict).

Weakening arguments

Those who weaken the ḥadīth fall into two streams:

• Those who weaken ʿAmr's isnād absolutely (because they see it as disconnected, mursal, or wholly a manuscript), and therefore weaken any report through it. Their grounds have been answered in Chapter Two.
• Those who weaken this ḥadīth specifically through Ibn Lahīʿah and al-Muthanná, both individually weak. Imām al-Tirmidhī's caution is on this latter ground.

Synthesis

The most defensible verdict on the ḥadīth of Zakāt on Jewellery is that it is ḥasan via Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim's route from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather, with corroboration from Ibn Jurayj's route, both of which fall in Imām al-Dhahabī's third tier of ʿAmr's narrators. The opposing position relies on Imām Ibn Ḥibbān's isnād through Ibn Lahīʿah, which is independently weak; that route's weakness does not bear on the strength of the Ḥusayn / Ibn Jurayj routes. Imām al-Tirmidhī's comment on the chain is best read as a non-affirmation of ṣaḥīḥ status, not as a positive declaration of weakness, an inference confirmed by his explicit mention of corroboration.

---

Conclusion

After this wide survey and comprehensive review of what has been said about the narration of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather, it has become clear that the rejected (munkar) and weak ḥadīth reported through this chain are so by reason of weak transmitters from ʿAmr, or by reason of more authentic reports contradicting them. Where the ḥadīth is free of contradicting evidence and reaches us through reliable narrators from ʿAmr, it is ḥasan with a connected isnād. The grounds are these:

1. The unanimity of those who hold the chain to be a manuscript on the soundness of the manuscript's attribution to ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu). Their disagreement is only over the mode of its reception by ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb. No one has been recorded as challenging the soundness of the manuscript's attribution to ʿAbdullāh.
2. The unanimity of the imāms in arguing from ʿAmr's narrations on the laws of diyāt (blood-money), as Ibn al-Qayyim has reported.
3. The unanimity of the imāms on the personal integrity and truthfulness of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb and his father Shuʿayb, and the absence of any imputation of tadlīs against them.
4. The view that the chain is connected is the position of the verifying scholars of ḥadīth and the majority. They are the masters of the field, from whom the discipline is taken, as Imām al-Nawawī himself wrote, and the disagreement of others does not weigh against theirs.
5. The strongest opinion on the identity of "the grandfather" in the unspecified attributions is that it refers to ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu), the position the masters of the Musnad treat as default, having entered ʿAmr's narrations into ʿAbdullāh's Musnad.
6. The establishment of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb's audition from his father, and of Shuʿayb's audition from his grandfather ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu).
7. The default principle is that the muʿanʿanah of one whose integrity, truthfulness and audition from his shaykh are established is to be treated as connected, unless he is a mudallis. Accordingly, the muʿanʿanah of ʿAmr and his father Shuʿayb is to be borne as connected, given that the imputation of tadlīs against them is unfounded.
8. The wijādah element in this chain is not like ordinary wijādah, since the audition of part of the manuscript is established. From this it follows that ʿAmr knew of the rest's existence in general, not merely through finding it in his father's or his grandfather's hand. His muʿanʿanah of these reports is therefore unobjectionable, since he did not signal that he found them only in writing.
9. Bare wijādah unattended by audition is, on the soundest scholarly view, a recognised mode of transmission and connection, let alone wijādah accompanied by audition of part of the manuscript and connection of the rest, as in this chain.
10. The weakening of those imāms who weakened the chain is to be borne on its non-establishment by audition, not on rejection of argumentation from it. The imāms' practice, including those who weakened, is to argue from it; this is the strongest evidence that the manuscript's attribution to ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (raḍ. ʿanhu) is sound, as Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn himself stated.
11. Mere variation in the formulation by which ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb conveyed the chain from his father from his grandfather is not a basis for rejecting the report. Muʿanʿanah in a place of wijādah does not impair connection; it is a defect of mode of transmission, and the report is connected on the view that wijādah is sound.

Thus has it been confirmed that this is a ḥasan narration when free of contradicting reports and conveyed through reliable transmitters; for the grounds of weakness raised against it have not stood up under scholarly investigation, nor under careful attention to the words of the people of knowledge. Wa-Allāhu al-muwaffiq wa-al-hādī ilā al-ṣawāb. All praise belongs to Allāh, by whose blessings righteous deeds are completed; sufficient is Allāh for us, and an excellent disposer of affairs is He. May Allāh bless and grant peace to our Prophet Muḥammad and his family and Companions, all of them.

---

Bibliography

ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, Abū Bakr ibn Hammām (d. 211 AH). al-Muṣannaf. Ed. Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī. 11 vols. Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1403 AH / 1983 CE.

Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, Sulaymān ibn al-Ashʿath (d. 275 AH). Sunan Abī Dāwūd. Ed. Muḥammad Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd. 4 vols. Beirut: al-Maktabah al-ʿAṣriyyah, n.d.

Abū ʿUbayd, al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 224 AH). Kitāb al-Amwāl. Ed. Khalīl Muḥammad Harrās. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1395 AH / 1975 CE.

Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Abū ʿAbdullāh al-Shaybānī (d. 241 AH). Musnad al-Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. Ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ, ʿĀdil Murshid et al. 50 vols. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1416–1421 AH / 1995–2001 CE.

Al-Bayhaqī, Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥusayn (d. 458 AH). al-Sunan al-Kubrā. Ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā. 10 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 3rd ed., 1424 AH / 2003 CE.

Al-Bulqīnī, ʿUmar ibn Raslān (d. 805 AH). Badhl al-Nāqid Baʿḍ Juhdihi fī al-Iḥtijāj bi ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb ʿan Abīhi ʿan Jaddihi. Manuscript / juzʾ; cited via al-Suyūṭī and al-Sakhāwī.

Al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl (d. 256 AH). al-Jāmiʿ al-Musnad al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Mukhtaṣar (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī). Ed. Muḥammad Zuhayr ibn Nāṣir al-Nāṣir. 9 vols. Beirut: Dār Ṭawq al-Najāh, 1422 AH / 2001 CE.

Al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl (d. 256 AH). al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr. Hyderabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyyah, n.d. (reprinted Beirut: Dār al-Fikr).

Al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl (d. 256 AH). al-Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Ṣaghīr. Ed. Maḥmūd Ibrāhīm Zāyid. Aleppo: Dār al-Waʿī, 1396 AH / 1976 CE.

Al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl (d. 256 AH). Juzʾ al-Qirāʾah Khalfa al-Imām. Ed. Faḍl al-Raḥmān al-Thawrī. Kuwait: Dār al-Khulafāʾ li al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, n.d.

Al-Dāraquṭnī, ʿAlī ibn ʿUmar (d. 385 AH). Sunan al-Dāraquṭnī. Ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ, Ḥasan ʿAbd al-Munʿim Shalbī et al. 5 vols. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1424 AH / 2004 CE.

Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. 748 AH). Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl fī Naqd al-Rijāl. Ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Bijāwī. 4 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah, 1382 AH / 1963 CE.

Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. 748 AH). al-Kāshif fī Maʿrifat man lahu Riwāyah fī al-Kutub al-Sittah. Ed. Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah and Aḥmad Muḥammad Numr al-Khaṭīb. 2 vols. Jeddah: Dār al-Qiblah li al-Thaqāfah al-Islāmiyyah, 1413 AH / 1992 CE.

Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. 748 AH). Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ. Ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ and a team of editors. 25 vols. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 9th ed., 1413 AH / 1993 CE.

Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. 748 AH). al-Mughnī fī al-Ḍuʿafāʾ. Ed. Nūr al-Dīn ʿItr. 2 vols. Doha: Idārat Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-Islāmī, n.d.

Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. 748 AH). Maʿrifat al-Ruwāh al-Mutakallam Fīhim bimā lā Yawjib al-Radd. Ed. Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad al-ʿAlī. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Manār, 1406 AH / 1986 CE.

Furayḥ al-Bahlāl. Imtinān al-ʿAlī bi ʿAdam Zakāt al-Ḥilyy. Modern work; cited critically throughout al-Ṣabīḥī's study.

Al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh (d. 405 AH). al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn. Ed. Muṣṭafā ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā. 4 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1411 AH / 1990 CE.

Al-Ḥāzimī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Mūsā (d. 584 AH). al-Iʿtibār fī al-Nāsikh wa al-Mansūkh min al-Āthār. Ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿajī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1413 AH / 1993 CE.

Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad (d. 327 AH). al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl. 9 vols. Hyderabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyyah, 1271 AH (reprinted Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī).

Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad (d. 327 AH). al-Marāsīl. Ed. Shukrullāh ibn Niʿmatullāh Qūjānī. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1397 AH / 1977 CE.

Ibn Abī Shaybah, Abū Bakr ʿAbdullāh ibn Muḥammad (d. 235 AH). al-Muṣannaf fī al-Aḥādīth wa al-Āthār. Ed. Kamāl Yūsuf al-Ḥūt. 7 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, 1409 AH / 1988 CE.

Ibn al-Athīr, Majd al-Dīn al-Mubārak ibn Muḥammad (d. 606 AH). Jāmiʿ al-Uṣūl fī Aḥādīth al-Rasūl. Ed. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Arnaʾūṭ. Damascus: Maktabat al-Ḥalwānī, 1389–1392 AH / 1969–1972 CE.

Ibn ʿAdī al-Jurjānī, Abū Aḥmad ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAdī (d. 365 AH). al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl. Ed. ʿĀdil Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Mawjūd and ʿAlī Muḥammad Muʿawwaḍ. 9 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1418 AH / 1997 CE.

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr (d. 751 AH). Tahdhīb Sunan Abī Dāwūd (ʿAwn al-Maʿbūd). In ʿAwn al-Maʿbūd Sharḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2nd ed., 1415 AH.

Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ al-Shahrazūrī, Abū ʿAmr ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 643 AH). Muqaddimah Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (Maʿrifat Anwāʿ ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth). Ed. Nūr al-Dīn ʿItr. Damascus: Dār al-Fikr al-Muʿāṣir, 1406 AH / 1986 CE.

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (d. 852 AH). Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb. 12 vols. Hyderabad: Maṭbaʿat Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-Niẓāmiyyah, 1326 AH (reprinted Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1404 AH / 1984 CE).

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (d. 852 AH). Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb. Ed. Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah. Aleppo: Dār al-Rashīd, 1406 AH / 1986 CE.

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (d. 852 AH). Taʿrīf Ahl al-Taqdīs bi Marātib al-Mawṣūfīn bi al-Tadlīs. Ed. ʿĀṣim ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Qaryūṭī. Amman: Maktabat al-Manār, 1403 AH / 1983 CE.

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (d. 852 AH). Lisān al-Mīzān. Ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah. 10 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyyah, 1423 AH / 2002 CE.

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (d. 852 AH). Itḥāf al-Maharah bi al-Fawāʾid al-Mubtakarah min Aṭrāf al-ʿAsharah. Ed. Markaz Khidmat al-Sunnah wa al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah. 19 vols. Madinah: Majmaʿ al-Malik Fahd / Markaz Khidmat al-Sunnah, 1415 AH / 1994 CE.

Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī, Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH). al-Iḥsān fī Taqrīb Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān (arr. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī ibn Balbān). Ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ. 18 vols. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1408 AH / 1988 CE.

Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī, Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH). Kitāb al-Thiqāt. Ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Muʿīd Khān. 9 vols. Hyderabad: Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyyah, 1393–1403 AH.

Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī, Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH). Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn min al-Muḥaddithīn wa al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa al-Matrūkīn. Ed. Maḥmūd Ibrāhīm Zāyid. 3 vols. Aleppo: Dār al-Waʿī, 1396 AH / 1976 CE.

Ibn Khuzaymah, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq (d. 311 AH). Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah. Ed. Muḥammad Muṣṭafā al-Aʿẓamī. 4 vols. Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1390–1399 AH.

Ibn Mājah, Abū ʿAbdullāh Muḥammad ibn Yazīd al-Qazwīnī (d. 273 AH). Sunan Ibn Mājah. Ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī. 2 vols. Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyyah, n.d.

Ibn Shāhīn, Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar ibn Aḥmad (d. 385 AH). Tārīkh Asmāʾ al-Thiqāt. Ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿajī. Kuwait: al-Dār al-Salafiyyah, 1404 AH / 1984 CE.

Ibn Yūnus al-Ṣadafī, Abū Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Aḥmad (d. 347 AH). Tārīkh Ibn Yūnus al-Miṣrī. Ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Fatḥī ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ. 2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1421 AH / 2000 CE.

Al-ʿIrāqī, Zayn al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥīm ibn al-Ḥusayn (d. 806 AH). Sharḥ al-Tabṣirah wa al-Tadhkirah. Ed. ʿAlī Ḥusayn ʿAlī. 3 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat Dār al-Minhāj, 1423 AH / 2002 CE.

Mālik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH). al-Muwattaʾ. Ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī. Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1406 AH / 1985 CE.

Al-Mizzī, Jamāl al-Dīn Abū al-Ḥajjāj Yūsuf (d. 742 AH). Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmāʾ al-Rijāl. Ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf. 35 vols. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1400–1413 AH / 1980–1992 CE.

Al-Mizzī, Jamāl al-Dīn Abū al-Ḥajjāj Yūsuf (d. 742 AH). Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf bi Maʿrifat al-Aṭrāf. Ed. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad Sharaf al-Dīn. 14 vols. Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī / al-Dār al-Qayyimah, 1403 AH / 1983 CE.

Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Naysābūrī (d. 261 AH). al-Musnad al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Mukhtaṣar (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim). Ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī. 5 vols. Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, n.d.

Al-Nasāʾī, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Aḥmad ibn Shuʿayb (d. 303 AH). al-Sunan al-Mujtabā. Ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah. 9 vols. Aleppo: Maktabat al-Maṭbūʿāt al-Islāmiyyah, 2nd ed., 1406 AH / 1986 CE.

Al-Nawawī, Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā ibn Sharaf (d. 676 AH). al-Majmūʿ Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab. Ed. Muḥammad Najīb al-Muṭīʿī. 23 vols. Jeddah: Maktabat al-Irshād / Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1380 AH (reprint).

Al-Nawawī, Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā ibn Sharaf (d. 676 AH). Tahdhīb al-Asmāʾ wa al-Lughāt. 4 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, n.d.

Al-Ṣabīḥī, Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Manṣūr. al-Iḥtijāj bi Riwāyat ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb ʿan Abīhi ʿan Jaddihi. Riyadh, 6/3/1412 AH. [Translated in this article.]

Al-Ṣabīḥī, Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Manṣūr. Fiqh Zakāt al-Ḥilyy. Riyadh: privately issued, n.d.

Al-Sakhāwī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 902 AH). Fatḥ al-Mughīth bi Sharḥ Alfiyyat al-Ḥadīth. Ed. ʿAlī Ḥusayn ʿAlī. 4 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Sunnah, 1424 AH / 2003 CE.

Al-Shaybānī, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan (d. 189 AH). Kitāb al-Āthār (Muwattaʾ Muḥammad). Ed. Khalīl Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Māys. Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1413 AH / 1993 CE.

Al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAlī (d. 476 AH). al-Muhadhdhab fī Fiqh al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, n.d.

Al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 911 AH). Tadrīb al-Rāwī fī Sharḥ Taqrīb al-Nawawī. Ed. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ʿAbd al-Laṭīf. 2 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Riyāḍ al-Ḥadīthah, n.d.

Al-Tirmidhī, Abū ʿĪsā Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā (d. 279 AH). al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr (Sunan al-Tirmidhī). Ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf. 6 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1996 CE.

Al-Zaylaʿī, Jamāl al-Dīn Abū Muḥammad ʿAbdullāh ibn Yūsuf (d. 762 AH). Naṣb al-Rāyah li Aḥādīth al-Hidāyah. Ed. Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah. 5 vols. Jeddah: Dār al-Qiblah li al-Thaqāfah al-Islāmiyyah / Muʾassasat al-Rayyān, 1418 AH / 1997 CE.

---

Footnotes

1. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 3, p. 80. ↩

2. Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf, vol. 6, p. 303. ↩

3. Fatḥ al-Mughīth, vol. 3, p. 180. ↩

4. Tadrīb al-Rāwī, vol. 2, pp. 257 – 258. ↩

5. Sharḥ al-Tabṣirah wa al-Tadhkirah, vol. 3, p. 97. ↩

6. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 183. ↩

7. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 165. ↩

8. Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, vol. 3, p. 263. ↩

9. Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 51. ↩

10. al-Kāmil fī al-Ḍuʿafāʾ, vol. 5, p. 1768. ↩

11. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 177. ↩

12. Tahdhīb al-Sunan, vol. 6, p. 374. ↩

13. Fatḥ al-Mughīth, vol. 3, p. 178. ↩

14. Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 4, p. 356. ↩

15. al-Thiqāt, vol. 4, p. 357. ↩

16. al-Thiqāt, vol. 6, p. 437. ↩

17. tr. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar's Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb groups every narrator he treats into one of twelve ṭabaqāt (generations / strata) running from the Companions through the late Atbāʿ al-Tābiʿīn. "From the third" (min al-thālithah) refers to the third ṭabaqah, the middle Tābiʿūn, exemplified by figures such as Imām al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and Imām Ibn Sīrīn. For the full scheme see the companion note, Ṭabaqāt in Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb. ↩

18. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 173. ↩

19. al-Tabṣirah wa al-Tadhkirah, vol. 3, p. 95. ↩

20. al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, vol. 4, p. 218. ↩

21. Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, vol. 2, p. 1037. ↩

22. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 176. ↩

23. Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 9, p. 266 (citing Ibn Yūnus, Tārīkh Miṣr). ↩

24. Thiqāt Ibn Ḥibbān, vol. 5, p. 353. ↩

25. Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, p. 489. ↩

26. al-Tabṣirah wa al-Tadhkirah, vol. 3, p. 95. ↩

27. Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn, vol. 2, pp. 72 – 73. ↩

28. Muqaddimah Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, p. 347. ↩

29. Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 51. ↩

30. tr. jawālīq (sing. jawāliq): saddlebags or wallets, here used metaphorically for unsorted bundles of narrations carried over wholesale from manuscript collections, with the implication that the contents have not been sifted by oral audition. Al-Dhahabī's gloss in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 178: "He means: they narrate from manuscripts." ↩ ↩²

31. al-Marāsīl li Ibn Abī Ḥātim, p. 90. ↩

32. Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 52. ↩

33. tr. thabt (ثبت): said of a transmitter who is both reliable in religion and exact in memory; in some critics' usage one degree above thiqah, signalling especially firm command of the material. ↩

34. Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn, vol. 2, p. 72. ↩

35. Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, vol. 2, p. 1037. ↩

36. Thiqāt Ibn Shāhīn, p. 152. ↩

37. Thiqāt Ibn Shāhīn, p. 151. ↩

38. al-Iʿtibār fī al-Nāsikh wa al-Mansūkh, p. 89. ↩

39. Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, pp. 50, 54. ↩

40. Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, vol. 3, p. 263. ↩

41. tr. The Arabic idiom (في حديثه عند الناس شيء) is a softened critical formula used by the early critics; it signals reservation rather than a verdict of weakness, and is consistent with overall acceptance of the narrator. Sufyān's report is preserved in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, vol. 2, p. 1037. ↩

42. al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, vol. 6, p. 342; al-Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Ṣaghīr, p. 170, no. 262. ↩

43. Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 51. ↩

44. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 174. ↩

45. Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, vol. 2, p. 1037. ↩

46. Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 54. ↩

47. al-Tabṣirah wa al-Tadhkirah, vol. 3, p. 93. ↩ ↩²

48. al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, vol. 6, p. 342. ↩

49. Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, vol. 3, p. 266. ↩

50. Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 52. ↩

51. Ḥāshiyat Naṣb al-Rāyah, vol. 1, pp. 58 – 59. ↩

52. tr. Imām al-Tirmidhī states at the close of his Kitāb al-ʿIlal (appended to the Sunan): جميع ما في هذا الكتاب من الحديث فهو معمول به، وبه أخذ بعض أهل العلم، ما خلا حديثين: حديث ابن عباس أن النبي ﷺ جمع بين الظهر والعصر بالمدينة، والمغرب والعشاء من غير خوف ولا سفر ولا مطر. وحديث النبي ﷺ أنه قال: «إذا شرب الخمر فاجلدوه، فإن عاد في الرابعة فاقتلوه». "All of the ḥadīth in this book of mine is acted upon, some of the people of knowledge having held by it, except for two: the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās (raḍ. ʿanhumā) that the Prophet ﷺ combined Ẓuhr with ʿAṣr in Madīnah, and Maghrib with ʿIshāʾ, without fear, journey, or rain; and the ḥadīth ‹If he drinks wine, flog him; if he returns the fourth time, kill him›." The ḥadīth of zakāt on jewellery is not among the two exceptions; this independently supports the reading that Imām al-Tirmidhī's caution there bears on its transmitters, not on the matn itself. ↩